Sentence examples for mean importance and from inspiring English sources

The other three groups (2013 state level staff and both sets of local level participants) had similar mean importance and availability scores (mean importance range: 9.5 to 9.8 and mean availability range: 7.2 to 7.4) (data not shown).

In Kansas, mean importance and availability scores were higher for state respondents compared to local respondents, and gaps were larger at the local level than at the state level.

For the 11 pre-identified ethical issues, mean importance and mean stress scores were also calculated from the sum of scores given to each issue, divided by total number of participants.

Participants from the 2013 state level survey reported significantly larger mean importance and availability scores (p <0.001, d =1.00, and p <0.001, d = .78 respectively) and smaller mean gaps (p <0.01, d = .19) compared to the 2008 survey.

We assessed whether a relationship existed between the level of importance of each factor (mean importance rating) and the agreement (SDs) and no linear relationship was found.

In order to determine the level of priority of each of these 25 solutions, the importance and feasibility ratings were combined in a single score by summing the mean importance score and the average of the two mean feasibility scores for each solution, as shown in Table 5. * Higher ratings indicate higher priority; lowest possible priority rating = 2, highest possible priority rating = 10.

Table 1 provides five factors with the highest mean importance ratings and five factors with the lowest mean importance ratings.

The Additional file 1: Table SA-2 lists all factors, rank-ordered in descending order according to mean importance ratings, and provides density plots of the rating distributions of each factor.

In Table 2 the mean importance scores and variances of the different quality indicators are presented.

Overall priority ratings for these policy solutions were calculated by summing the mean importance score and the average of the two mean feasibility scores for each solution.

Table  3 shows mean importance, availability, and gap scores with corresponding 95% confidence intervals, p values from independent samples t tests, and Cohen's d values for 2008 and 2013 state level workforce surveys.